I block the Politics section for a reasonBut Slashdot seems more and more obsessed with ramming the Politics section down everyone's throats.

First I had to block the Your Rights Online section because it morphed into Your Rights COMMA On-Line.Then Science, because Slashdot turned it into a Creationists/Stem Cell debate sectionNow, 3 stories in the last few weeks have leaked out of Politics (where they rightly belong) and on to the front page/News

Dear Self-Important Editors:
You (yeah you) created sections and the ability to block sections for a reason.
Maybe you should show some self-restraint and put you Damn Fucking soap boxes back in their proper sections.
I and many others have no desire to be subjected to stories, the main point of which seems to be running screeds on how "Jews control the GOP" or how "Ron Paul was right".
Your inability to observe the standards of conduct you yourself created shows an utter lack of class.

Just to show that you aren't a total hypocrite, how about you ask the IRS to examine the last few years of your taxes. Remember, by your standards, any mistake that they find is in indication of your own own criminal intent.

One of the three was hoping for the tax liability to expire beyond the normal collection point.

Sorry, but there are so called elite of the crop and if they can't do their taxes right it either means...a) the tax code is too convoluted for even expertsb) they are dishonestc) all of the above.

I guess we can thank Obama for at least identifying scoundrels in his Administration, the problem is he still allowed them in. Congress gave them a pass which isn't saying much for that group either.

I welcome the IRS to check my numbers. I know I am honest. I also know that it is right. You have to figure that not only do these guys know better but many probably had help filing. It doesn't wash.

I would love the IRS to be required to go over in detail ALL members of Congress EACH YEAR. They should be subject to the utmost scrutiny at all times. However just like Presidents too many adopt an elitist "nobility" attitude that they are too good to be closely examined. After all, it is they who protect us and therefor deserve the latitude.

No, thank them. Obama, being a fool, is about to learn why those loopholes exist. We put them in to keep some of the multinationals headquartered here in the US in practice by allowing them to headquarter on paper somewhere else and we all agreed to ignore the oddities that followed from that. Forced to actually choose many will opt to close up the skyscraper here and open one up in a more business friendly climate. Then profits from US operations will flow OUT instead of overseas profits flowing IN. I'm failing to see how the US wins.

This trend is going to be accelerated by the overthrow of the rule of law implied in the auto bailouts, etc. When the workers are running around seizing the means of production smart people start looking to get out while they can.

Obama, being a fool, is about to learn why those loopholes exist. We put them in to keep some of the multinationals headquartered here in the US in practice by allowing them to headquarter on paper somewhere else and we all agreed to ignore the oddities that followed from that.

Oddities are still a symptom of fuckedupness, though. If you and I don't have the loopholes (we have to pay taxes that, say, Proctor and Gamble doesn't have to), then we are losing.

Either repeal the taxes or enforce them uniformly without loopholes. If one business gets the loophole by being technically in the Cayman Islands and another business doesn't, then that second business is being punished for not doing absurd things like technically moving their HQ to Cayman Islands.

Loopholes are just special interests crying for a subsidy. They should have lobbied for lower taxes for everyone, instead of obscure exceptions. Then their whining about taxes would have some legitimacy. Right now, they sound about as legitimate as bankers.

If the corporations are, for practical purposes, actually located in the United States, then they should pay United States taxes. If they don't, the answer is simple: don't let the corporations do business in the United States.

That way, they can move elsewhere if they want, but they would still be losing their largest market.

Well "gee" who knew that there's hundreds of thousands of American employees working, eating and living in the cayman islands.

Must be getting crowded with 18000+ US corps multiplied by hundreds of employees each.

Or not.

Kinda the point of the article...they *don't* live there. The corp shifts its paperwork out of the nice cushy western country where all the executive live to some pathetic third world country, but still maintains 100% of its physical presence *in* the nice cushy western country. If your business is 100% physically in the country, hiding behind the government, using the infrastructure and courts and mooching off the public resources that allow you to operate that have been paid for by OTHER MORE UPSTANDING BUSINESSES without paying your share for all those things then your a parasite and deserve everything you get from people who pay their share!

They're nothing but parasites and not long ago such unpatriotic behavior was scorned publicly by both sides of the aisle.

Now the western world has the lick-spittle, power worshipers who enable them...

"That may be good for the country, but it will be very bad for the government. The government's power comes from the money that taxpayers give to the government. Remove that, and politicians of all sorts suddenly switch from "Irreplaceable Guardians of Treasury" to "Generic Advisers on Public Policy." Which is, actually, what they were supposed to be."

While I'd actually be in favor of that outcome, I don't think it would necessarily happen. Corporations don't actually pay taxes...they just pass the cost onto the consumer.

If they cut the corporate taxes...they come in, create more business, and employ more people who then pay more taxes, and govt. gets more revenue. More growth means more revenue, even from less tax venues...

Taxes on business is retarded. I know everyone wants to stick it to big business, but it makes no sense. When companies make money, the company either: is used to pay off expenses, including employees (who pay income tax) rent, etc (who pay property tax) or buying shit (and paying sales tax). Or they reinvest it (which hopefully leads to bigger income in the future) or they pay it out as some sort of dividend or stock buy (in which case those who benefit will be taxed with income/capital gains tax). Taxing the businesses profit amounts to double-dipping. The result of which is businesses now must compete with their competitors in not just the quality marketing, and price of their products, but also in how good they are at evading taxes. A company who manipulates its balance sheet to minimize tax liability has a competitive advantage against one who doesn't.

the result is ploys like being "headquartered" in a tax haven, and balance sheets that have been manipulated to hide as much information on their actual assets as possible. They further avoid taxes by buying influence over politicians to get tax rebates and incentives and other such bribes.

The result is, companies still manage to pay little to no taxes, the balance sheet manipulation makes accurate assessment of businesses impossible for investors and regulators, and competition is stifled because established businesses have the politicians bought and paid for, making sure any upstarts don't get the same rebates and preferential treatment they got.

The only people actually paying business taxes are small businesses, who cannot afford a team of lawyers, "creative" accountants, and massive campaign donations to minimize their tax liability. These are the exact same businesses who politicians claim to support.

Everyone knows when it comes to taxes the game is rigged. If a country cracks down on tax evasion there will be another one right behind it looking to claim all the jobs and economic stimulus that business creates. Obama's crackdown will probably lead to a net loss of tax revenue, and cost a lot of people their jobs.

The money used to pay off expenses, pay employees, buy/rent offices and equipment is not taxed (there might be payroll and income tax on each employee, there may be state taxes of various sorts but the federal government will not treat these expenditures as taxable income).

Similarly, investments in expansion are likewise not taxed (as long as these are essentially along the lines of the above)

It is only income the companies hoard or distribute as dividends that is taxed.

The funds distributed as dividends are not subject to double taxation. Indeed, as per the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, dividends are taxed as capital gains not as income so it's not even 'single dipping', never mind 'double dipping'.

And guess who winds up paying for the taxes companies pay? Yep, the people that buy the products. Taxing a company is still taxing the people, just adding another layer onto taxation.

That's not to say corporate income shouldn't be taxed; that may be the most efficient means to collect the needed revenue. But let's not kid ourselves by thinking that taxing companies means the "evil rich" will be paying taxes instead of "the common people".

Corporations can pay taxes too. All I can say is "hello transactional tax" and hopefully (but not likely) goodbye to many other taxes. You can't dodge a transactional tax unless you cease doing business in a country. Considering this would ruin most companies, not having transactions in the US, it would remove any incentive to move headquarters overseas. In actuality every country is slowly going to move towards a transactional tax anyway to stop the, shall we say less than positive intimations (read: Blackmail), companies try to pull now. The funny thing is while the US has a higher tax rate, it has a lower collected rate than most countries.

The plus here is that corporations are the ones that are going to f*ck themselves over. You see they need, and I mean NEED, the government. Yes, the same ebil gubbermint they complain about. China isn't exactly a haven for Intellectual Property (i.e. rampant theft), other countries can't project power to defend the corporations various holdings, other countries lack the legal mechanisms for corporate defense, et al. That's why corporations raise the hew and cry often, but do very little but lobby.

The right keeps using the words "Socialist", "Marxist", and "Fascist" to describe Obama. Those words do not mean what they mean think they mean. I mean, really, Obama is a _______ (fill in the blank)? Obviously the right has ZERO idea of how center-right Obama really is. Heck, in any "Socialist" country, Obama would be seen as a right-winger. Fascist? Yeah, right, let me know what the previous President's wonderful record on the Bill of Rights was, in particular the 4th amendment. Marxist? Puh-lease, let me know when Obama pulls a Reagan and sends troops in somewhere over a labor dispute.

Just goes to show you what a lack of perspective nets people.

End all tax "credits" and "exemptions" (including EITC and Mortgage tax credits) and government handouts to corporations. After 5 years of paying off debt, lower the marginal rate. Remember, no exemptions at all. This would sting at first, in fact it would have to be phased in, but then the country would have a tax system that is as "fair" as taxes can be.

Here is the problem with your contrived statement. And yes, It's almost identical to one made by Warren Buffet a few years back and parroted by a couple of people who are now known to be tax cheats (as if raising the taxes would effect someone cheating and not paying).

Anyways, here is the problem. You keep using the word I. In everything you say, it's all about you. So why are you trying to impose this idea of yours into others? If you don't pay enough taxes and that's your honest believe (Mr. Kennedy who failed to report stock transactions that he actually reported to the senate ethics comity and Reinold who failed to report rental income for more then 10 years and both have parroted the same statement to some extent) there is a process where you can donate more then what your allowed. In fact, everyone who claimed they can or should pay more taxes fail to pay more then they have to and most of them have structured their income to the point that most of their tax obligation is negated or they just cheat and don't report the income.

So why is that, you and many others want to tag onto this line about needing to pay more but when the ability is and always has been there, you fail to do so. And when you and others do your taxes, why is it that you always attempt to take as many deductions as possible? Your entire statement was about how you feel, and how you do whatever but it's nothing more then lip service. You posted AC so no one who knows you will chime in with the truth of you making 35k a year with a wife and 2 kids and don't even pay a 10% effective tax rate.

While corporations love to move labor operations offshore to save money, to places like India and China (certainly not Madrid), I have a feeling the corporate executives themselves don't really want to live in places like that, as evidenced by the fact that they all live in the USA, where their personal income is taxed far less than in places like Spain, and they don't have to put up with the living conditions of places like India and China (or the culture difference, for that matter).

I'm just pointing out why I don't think they would actually move their headquarters in reality. No matter how cheap taxes are in India, for instance, no American executive wants to move there. They want to live here (and not just anywhere in the USA, but in expensive places like California, even though much cheaper places like Alabama and Mississippi exist), and enjoy the benefits of using offshore tax havens and moving production offshore.

There are two main factors that make Delaware a popular jurisdiction for incorporation. First, there's no corporate income tax for revenues that are made outside of Delaware, and the other is that Delaware's laws make it very difficult to pierce the corporate veil in litigation.

Several other states are trying to follow suit. Nevada's a fairly popular one, too.

They won't move for reasons I haven't seen mentioned yet. They tend to like things like reliable infrastructures, relatively fair legal systems, etc. And the most important thing of all - the protection of the United States and its military. When country X decides to nationalize their factories and imprison their executives, I'm guessing that knowing the Cayman Islands stands ready to retaliate will be small comfort.

Because communism is dead, and has been for a long, long time. I am scared of fascism, which is far different from Communism, and I think you need to learn what the difference is. Key aspect: in the Cold War Soviet Union, the workers did not control the means of production. Neither did they in Communist China, nor do they in modern China. In actuality, it is logistically impossible for the workers to control the means of production on a large scale. Hence, I do not fear that.

The UAW was the biggest contributor to the failure of the US auto industry. By raising labor costs to the point only huge luxury cars could earn a profit.

Yet another falsehood from the right. The Ford Ranger was hugely profitable, despite labor costs. The smaller cars that were produced by Honda and Toyota faced labor costs very close to that of American car companies. Yet they were very profitable -- and the difference in profit was greater than the difference in labor costs. The failures of the auto industry are squarely on the shoulders of those who were unable to foresee and meet the demands of the market. This happened because the automakers in the US grew accustomed to creating and molding the market, and were unable to adapt to quality competition being able to serve the actual demands of the market.

But we do have a system to deal with the controllers of the means of production failing. It used to be called bankruptcy court. But the UAW would lose bigtime so it wasn't considered a (politically) viable option.

I think you consider the unions a bugaboo. So be it; it helps me understand where you're coming from, and where I'm unlikely to be able to get a point across. The biggest one being that the health of the UAW, in this case, is a bellwether for larger labor concerns. And by labor, I don't mean organized labor, I mean working class. These are the people that ultimately pay if the automakers close their doors. Any sane capital investor loses a small part of their portfolio; any worker entangled loses their entire livelihood for a while.

I understand the philosophy you are coming from (I once believed much the same), but please be aware that the Communism bugaboo was supported by the government largely to keep the domestic populace in check. The external threat is a wonderful tool for those in power...

The whole point is that it's an *entitlement*. I'm not asking anyone for a handout and praying they're in a good mood in my time of need. It's OWED to me. As in MINE. That's the important part. That I don't have to ASK.

As someone that came out of foster care with no relatives I know first hand what it's like to have _no_ safety net. And I've been laid off a few times, in fairly quick succession. That means I know what it's like to sleep outside, or in the back of a car.

I pay taxes on every penny I make. If an hour of my labor is worth $20 and I trade that hour for $20 I pay as if I had gained $20 _income_ and not merely broken even. Why do I have to pay? The New Deal, that's why.

The New Deal and the safety net it promised is what made it possible for the government to put that tax liability on my head. And now that it's on and fixed good, the people that used to foot 80% of the bill is now only covering 20% wants to take away that safety net -because if I wasn't lazy I wouldn't need one. That 20% is just too damn much now.

Let me tell you something. When my employer goes belly up or lays me off (to get a momentary jump in stock price so some fat cat can line his pockets) and I need help, I'm not going to any 'faith based charity' or some shit like that. I'm going to get my 'entitlement'. You know why?

Because I'm ENTITLED GOD DAMN IT. I'm sick and tired of carving out 30+% of my wages to subsidize a laundry list of corporate interests in this country, only to listen to the bastards rant on about how if I have any kind of a guarantee it'll just make me DEPENDANT. WTF. You don't know me. I once pulled a 60 hour shift and spent 25 of those hours at hard labor. Call me lazy to my face and I'll take your fucking teeth out.

Redistribution of wealth? That's my motherfucking MONEY going to subsidize the corporate fat cats pocketing BILLIONS Look it up. Get a map of 'giver' states and 'taker' states and overlay it with a political Dems vs Rep map. Holy Shit?! Welfare is what I call it.

There's a line that people just flat out shouldn't be _allowed_ to fall through. Not talking about living high, but I am talking about food, dry clothes, place to sleep *when it's needed* and ffs the knowledge that I can see a doctor when I'm sick. What you don't seem to realize is that when people have to fight day and night for those minimum needs, they feel relieved and emotionally 'take a breath' during the times when they have them. Having those things guaranteed frees people to look up, to start thinking about personal _achievements_ and not mere survival. Knowing I don't need to go to my neighbors or to some charity on my knees for a 'handout' in a crisis means dignity and respect. I earned that. If you think I'm being unreasonable or greedy, fine. Gimme my money back then.

If grubby hands are gonna be in my pocket every Friday there needs to be some RECIPROCITY.

Well the point is that he plans to close those loopholes. But generally speaking, when you use a loophole to get around a rule, you're behaving unethically. I think it's reasonable to be upset at the businesses for that.

Anyway, what's so hard about filling out a tax form correctly? How much "careful investigation" does it take?

Quite a bit actually. A couple years back, CNN's Money Magazine did a famous study. They took a regular family's tax information to 49 different firms. Of the 49 not one of them got the same result. According to Money's tax lawyers, all 49 were at least somewhat incorrect. Money then took it to the IRS. About half the time the IRS couldn't even give them accurate advice.

After looking at my girlfriends taxes who got divorced during early 2008, bought a house, has itemized business expenses and has an extra property, I thought "no freaking way i'm doing those taxes". I tried to figure out eligibility for extra child tax credits but we gave up and ended up giving it to a tax accountant.

If anything can be gleamed from this very long thread, it should be that taxes overall are too fucking complicated. Everyone thinks they should get a handout and politicians were more than happy to oblige, giving us this conglomerate of shit we call the IRS code.

Taxes aren't too complicated. People just want to get out of paying them wherever they can.

You sound like someone who has a single job, no family and doesn't own anything. Of course then taxes are easy. Start a side business, add in a family, various retirement accounts, non-retirement stock accounts (ETFs end up being different beasts all together), home ownership, etc... and you'll see that taxes are way too complicated.

And depending on which iteration of the article you have read, that's kind of what everyone is predicting. We'll lower corporate tax while closing loopholes. It's regrettable that this will be necessary, but we've spent 7 years funding multi-nationals in setting up operations outside the US, so they can create some amount of trouble, it's just not optimial for either the US or them.

On the other hand, we will at least regain some control over what is outsourced. Right now "if it doesn't need to be done here, ship it". This is leaving companies full of redundant white collar middle management, with no real skills or intellectual output. If we make some changes we can theoretically retain some of the R&D work we want to keep here, and by proxy, some of the MFG/"know how" and infrastructure required to do that.

I am curious who MS's competitor is that they'd me "disadvantaged" to. The same goes for pretty much all of them, I know who my company's major competitors are, and I know they're US based and off-shoring because of each other. I am not aware of any purely foreign based company that is even on our our top 10 competitive threats. In fact 99% of the market is divided into 3 major competitors, all US based.

While true, that's an overly simplified view of what is being taxed, and how taxes play out economically. In essence, it's a straw man -- it diverts from the question of what activity is actually being taxed (and thus what activity is being inhibited by the tax).

In the end, there are only four types of taxes: taxes on labor, taxes on capital, taxes on imports, and taxes on consumption.

Each type of tax has different impacts on the economy, although their effects overlap in a lot of ways. Corporate taxes are a tax on profitable capital investment. While the tax is in the end born by everyone, those it impacts the most are capital investors. This is very different from a tax on labor (income tax) or a tax on consumption (sales tax).

I don't buy into a lot of the class warfare concepts; however, I do believe that assigning tax heavily on labor is a bad idea. I personally don't cherish the idea of a permanent underclass -- and it's getting ever harder for someone who earns primarily from labor to climb into the ranks of those who earn primarily from capital gains, save via tax-sheltered investment plans like 401ks or Roth IRAs.

So the question is, what are the things that we can tax and minimize the negative impact on the economy?

Since I believe trickle-down economics has been shown to not work, I believe taxes levied on capital investment are a good bet. One can increase capital investment to increase income. There is a limit to how much a person can increase labor to increase income.

You know, I hear this one all the time, and it just doesn't ring true to me. By most standards, I'm one of the people who has found success (starting reasonably low on the totem, even). I don't feel particularly "punished".

It's true I'm taxed vastly more now, than I was when I was making minimum wage. This isn't "punishment", it's paying my dues.

I'm taxed proportionately based on the benefits I've extracted from the system. Without community college, public health care & other social safety net systems I'd have never made it this far. Now I'm paying back into the system.

The idea that progressive income taxes are a disincentive for success is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If that was true, people would stop playing the lottery, no?

Why bother getting rich if you're just gonna be "punished". Oh right. Having more money is always better than having less money.

Stop bitching people. It's patriotic to pay your taxes, unless they are unjust... and they aren't.

Successful investment is going to tend to make the corporation worth more, so it seems like taxing the owners would be perfectly workable.

And so it is for C-corps. S-corps, for example all publically traded companies, pay corporate income tax.

I think the problem with taxing only the owners on their capital gains is that we'd lose our ability to influence businesses by means of tax law. Right-wingers may disagree with the principle there, but I feel that taxes are the only viable means we have of forcing businesses to internalize erstwhile external costs (like pollution).

So I feel corporate income taxes are a necessary tool in addition to capital gains tax.

The day I have a business, a house, and three cars to protect instead of a flat and a bicycle is the day flat taxing will sound fair to me. The rich benefit disproportionately from the benefits of taxation and should therefore pay a larger share.

The day that the X cents on the dollar sales tax on the pasta I buy represents the same fraction of my income as it does to an individual on one hundred times my income is the day a flat tax sounds fair to me.

The day that the last dollar I earn a week has the same subjective value to me as the last dollar Bill Gates earns has to him is the day a flat tax sounds fair to me. Taking 1% more from the super wealthy is not the same as taking 1% more from the very poor, even if it looks the same on paper.

Progressive taxation isn't just about redistribution of wealth, it is about a fair tax system that tries to match the value of the tax taken and the benefits an individual receives to the amount they pay.

Just because flat sounds fair using simplistic "everyone pays the same fraction of their income (or wealth)" reasoning doesn't mean it is. If you want to be actually 'fair' then you need to consider the consequences of a policy, not merely if it feels right on paper.

Business taxes are just indirect taxes on people. Consumers pay more for goods, investors receive fewer dividends or the value of their shares decreases, and employees receive lower wages and have fewer job opportunities.

Yeah, it is funny how the price of everything went down when corporate tax cuts were given. Oh wait, they stayed the same. If we actually start collecting corporate income taxes, I'm betting what will happen is that the companies will earn somewhat less net profit, and continue charging whatever the market will bear like they always do.

Businesses do not set prices at (cost to produce) * (1 + modest profit ratio). They set prices to maximize revenue by maximizing price times expected sales at that price. If that's less than it costs to produce, then they find another business, if it's more, even a lot more, then yee-ha! When their costs go down, they only tell you they're "passing the savings on to you!" when they think they can get more money by undercutting others. When their costs go up, they might like to charge more, but if that means fewer people will buy and they end up with less money, they suck it up and go on at the current prices.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's mostly income taxes that are at issue with foreign tax havens anyway, which are based on profit and shouldn't push a company from black to red. On the other hand if things like payroll taxes on U.S. employees increase, that's more incentive for them to outsource, not that they really need any more. Outsourcing is a bucket of worms to be sure, since just about anything you do to try to stop it just encourages it, and doing nothing means it's happening rapidly regardless.

Either way, don't expect the price of your next Dell to go up 12.4% because their tax rate did too. It just doesn't work that way.

Require companies to generate ONE set of financial statements each year, not two.

At present, companies create one set of financial statements for shareholders (showing big profits) and one statement for the IRS (showing little or no profits). A simple law that forbids this two-faced scheme would do a great deal to bring companies in line.

That's an incredibly simplistic view of the situation. Lowering taxes isn't a "reward" for bad companies. It is an "incentive" to all companies to do more business in the US (rather than in other countries where the taxes are lower). It is more of a "decreasing a penalty" than a "reward".

Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue because of increased spending since taxes are lower. Instead of easing penalties or adding incentives to do business in the US, the administration has instead elected to add more penalties. Two guesses how that will turn out.... Not like it hasn't been tried before.

It is not the case that "usually" lowing taxes increases revenue. It hasn't seemed to work too well for the last several rounds of tax cuts. Certainly there is a point where lowering taxes reduces total revenue. That point is a tax rate somewhere between 0 and 100%; where? That's up for debate.

Inherent in that argument is that maximizing revenue is desirable for the government. Perhaps that is true in a time of war, but government is not a business, minimization, not maximization should be it's goal imo.

Two: Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, for another. In 1992 he wrote that "[t]he 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."

And three, economist Paul Pecorino calculated in 1995 that peak revenue was generated at a tax rate of around 65%, much higher than current tax rates in the US.

Because manifestly the 'captains of industry' are fucking up on the job and managing companies into the ground. Therefore they are considerably worse at spending that money than the government. Congress is a tiny bit accountable, still. The CEOs of AIG and GM are not accountable, period.

In any case, this is a red herring. We don't want tax revenues to be as high as possible. We want the goddamn budget to fucking balance, thank you. Unless you're planning on eliminating Social Security and Medicare, raise taxes or sit down and shut up.

(Not yelling at you. Yelling at a Republican fantasy that spending fiat money that doesn't exist has no repercussions.)

However, most are also very clear in stating that optimizing revenue is NOT necessarily the best rate. It is important to weigh social needs and competitiveness with alternative locales, population happiness, etc.

Most of the world has adopted top marginal rates just below 50%. The US was in that category until the 1980s. Upon reducing that rate, the US began leading all industrialized countries in terms of deficit-to-GDP ratios. While most economists point out that this is likely a combined result of increased spending, rather than tax cuts)... however, tax cuts that occur below the 35% range have never really been shown to increase revenue... In fact, most models suggest the opposite.

If you can cite ANY papers that have specifically defined models that account for opportunity costs, economic elasticity and a cohesive mathematical model, please point them out as I'm not aware of anything in that camp isn't ideological punditry from the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation or other similar politically motivated organizations.

I guess a persons viewpoint on corporate taxations and regulation is based in part on perception, part on hearsay and part on belief. Should a corporation have the same rights as a citizen? Should the government favour corporations over individuals? And does low corporate tax mean a higher quality of life for citizens?

These are, in my view, important questions that need to be debated, research and argued for and against with reason, reflection and as far as possible with a comprehensive and broad study of the many many factors involved. Hopefully one would eventually end up with a policy based in reason that reflected practical reality and not dogmatic ideology.

Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue because of increased spending since taxes are lower.

Hard for me to evaluate this but I would be surprised if it was quite that simple. The economy is complex and there are many factors involved in levels that might not be immediately obvious. Of course if you provided links and information about in which period you are referring to we could perhaps evaluate further and speculate to whether or not the lowered tax was the ONLY contributing factor to increased revenue.

The goal, again in my view, should be to arrive at a tax, budget and economic policy that allowed the state to do all the things that are necessary (fire, police, roads, and other institutions depending on what you believe the Government should, or could, run or regulate); while providing the greatest amount of freedom for the individual. Though in this particular case I see only a Head of State trying to push for enforcing the laws and regulations that are already present. And to make it harder to avoid paying the existing taxes by finding loopholes. Debating about whether or not those taxes and regulations are fair is another issue entirely; but one, as I state above, is important no doubt about that. However anyone trying to excuse their criminal or unethical behaviour by saying "The law isn't fair!" can join the rest of the prison population; or actually try to use the democratic means available to argue for changing those laws. In this case "the corporations in question" are just a whining bunch of cry babies who believe they should be allowed to do what they wish disregarding what the laws of their own nation says.

Usually when the government lowers taxes they see an increase in tax revenue because of increased spending since taxes are lower

No. This is the often-marketed Supply Side tax cut effect that is, as shown here, incorrect.

The correct statement is that a cut in taxes does not reduce tax revenues dollar for dollar. This is also over the long-term, like 30+ years. For instance, the Kennedy era tax cuts eventually reduced tax revenue by 70% of expected receipt.

While I do not have direct citations back this up, it has been the recent trend that the sellers of Supply Side Tax cuts to the Republican party have had to claw back the extreme claims. I think Bruce Bartlett has spent recent history setting the record straight. You can also find more information among Krugman's public articles.

Maybe they don't see a benefit in proportion to the amount of taxes they're being forced to pay. I certainly don't.

Also, we have a lot of unemployed people. We want companies to do more business and make more money so they can hire people. You think penalizing them and taking money from them is going to help with that?

Corporate Executive: I wonder if I should invest in the USA, where the people hate us, the government really hates us, and they want to take our money? Hmm. No. I should try to grow the business in a more friendly country. Or maybe I'll just take my money and retire early. I hear Costa Rica is nice.

You suppport a parasitic state with a big chunk of your income, and not happy with that you want people around the world to be equally enslaved as you are, under risk of being invaded by your slave army.

You know the EU-Commissioner for financial regulation is Irish, he was the architect of the Irish tax evasion wonder for high tech companies.

When you buy software from Microsoft in Europe it comes from MIOL (Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited). Ireland is a gigantic tax evasion scam for American software companies which drain European markets including government customers without contributions to our social welfare states.

Why blame Ballmer and Microsoft?Ireland offers these companies a way to pay less in tax. You really expect them to not take it?Ireland sees it as a way to increase their income so they do it. If you want to blame anybody then blame Ireland and or the EU in general.Hey I am not a fan of Microsoft but in this case the blame seems really misplaces.Of course you could just stop buying Windows.You have Linux, BSD, and even Solaris now to choose from and build a local software industry around or you can keep buying Windows and pumping money out of your country. Windows is probably the path of least resistance... Kind of like going through Ireland for software sales.

What does he think is going to happen? These evil rich businessmen are going to go out and deliver pizzas in their free time to pay the extra taxes? Corporate taxes are exactly the same as raising income tax, except you are paying at the point of purchase rather then the point of earning. The only real point of corporate taxes is to give the government the ability to punish companies that fall out of favor.

Thank God someone else realizes this. Although I must point out that taxing companies can also be used for shaping or encouraging a specific type of behavior. E.g. 10% tax rate for all companies and then you get.5% off for being green or.5% off for R&D spending.

I'm tired of seeing people duped into clamoring for corporate taxes as though they'll somehow benefit from it. Can we replace everything on TV with basic economic and political education for a month? People need figure stuff like this out. Politicians drag out the same tired tricks over and over and the sheeple eat it up like it's free candy.

What does he think is going to happen? These evil rich businessmen are going to go out and deliver pizzas in their free time to pay the extra taxes? Corporate taxes are exactly the same as raising income tax, except you are paying at the point of purchase rather then the point of earning. The only real point of corporate taxes is to give the government the ability to punish companies that fall out of favor.

You're really going to defend tax cheats? They make a ton of money from US customers and they live in the US but they don't have to pay there fair share of taxes?

It all makes sense after reading your sig...

Socialism is a tool of fascists. Used to ease the minds of the masses and to present power grabs in the veil benefits.

You don't know anything about socialism or fascism. If you really believe your own line then you would be calling pretty much all of Europe fascists. I'm not sure anyone else is really going to agree with you other than other whackjobs.

You seem to have missed my entire point. Corporations do not pay taxes, at all! If we impose a 75% tax on every corporation and eliminate all loopholes and tax havens, corporations still won't pay a cent in taxes. All wealth is held by individuals. When a corporation is taxed, you and I pay that tax when we buy their products. I don't know how to make this more simple. If only they'd teach economics in school these days, maybe people wouldn't be so easily duped.

When you argue for higher taxes on corporations, you're actually arguing for higher taxes on yourself. Think about it for a few minutes. It may feel like social justice to raise taxes on a mega-corporation, but your emotions are wrong. No matter what they call it, the money always comes out of the same pocket: the individual American taxpayer.

Corporate taxes are exactly the same as raising income tax, except you are paying at the point of purchase rather then the point of earning.

What is proposed clearly is not the same as raising personal income taxes for several reasons, three of the most significant of which are:1) Increasing corporate income taxes is not equivalent to raising personal income taxes in general. Even assuming, for the sake of argument (at least till we get to the next item), that raising corporate income taxes had exactly the same effect as raising personal income taxes on the income earned by employees of those corporations, not all personal income comes from employment in entities that pay corporate income taxes since people are employed by tax exempt nonprofits (whose income isn't taxed at all), sole proprietorships, certain classes of partnerships, and S corporations (whose income is subject to personal, not corporate, taxes), and federal, state, and local governments.2) Increasing corporate income taxes isn't even equivalent to raising personal income taxes on the employees of the taxed corporations. This equivalency would require the assumption that corporations are paying wages that are above what the market will bear by at least an amount sufficient to cut wages by the exact proportion of the increase in corporate taxes. This assumption is clearly flawed.3) Narrowing the opportunities for one form of tax avoidance is not the same as raising marginal rates for the same tax. Making it harder for corporations to avoid certain taxes using mechanisms some (but far from all, or even the majority) have chosen to utilize is not the same raising the rate of corporate taxation, since it has no effect on those entities subject to corporate tax that have not chosen to avoid taxes using the mechanism being attacked. It only negatively impacts those entities currently using the particular tax avoidance measure, not corporations in general.

Am I cynical to think that these businesses will just raise the cost of their goods to cover the additional tax, thus making consumers the ones to pick up this $210 billion tab? I somehow doubt that publicly traded companies are excited to see the earnings hit show up in their quarterly statements.

They'll have to. Their business model depends on being able to "compete" with lower prices by cheating on their taxes. Money which could have been used to keep your children healthy, or educate them, or yes, even fight terrorism. What's worse, they did it so much that now the apparently depend on it.

If you can't make a profit playing by the rules then stop trying to make a profit and die. That's how the system is supposed to work, isn't it? (Whether or not that's a dumb idea is an entirely different debate...)

If you can't make a profit playing by the rules then stop trying to make a profit and die

This is more or less what's happenning to the USA as a whole. American companies simply cannot compete against foreign companies, that's why the industrial sector is moving to Asia. It's useless to say "stop trying to make a profit and die", they died a quarter century ago [msn.com].

It's the US government at all levels, federal, state, and local, that should learn to live by the rules. When the corporations are moving overseas to places with lower taxes this means your taxes are too high, you should cut government spending and taxes at the same time.

I hereby declare my small island a country with a 1.5% tax rate and 50 residents. Any corporation that owns a single grain of sand on my beach can say they are based here.

Never mind that they have all their offices, employees, and executives in the United States, and do all their business with the US and the US's main trade partners. They say they're from this small island with a 1.5% tax rate, and all of a sudden they don't have to pay the taxes that sustain the society they depend on for their workers and offices. Companies which utilize these shelters are leeching off of each and every one of you by basically living in a place and not paying for it. How do you expect a government with a relatively low tax rate compared to other industrialized countries, but 300 million people and tons and tons of land to look after and maintain, to compete against a tiny nation of several thousand that can survive purely on the pithy tax rates they charge their businesses?

They'll try. They'll be faced with the other side of the equation, though: as prices go up, demand drops. So they'll have to decide how much they can afford to lose in sales.

To me it only seems fair. As a private citizen I don't get out of paying taxes just because my income was outside the US. I have to file and pay taxes on that income, the only thing I get is a credit against US taxes due for the amount of taxes I paid on that income in that foreign country. The corporations are mad because they had a sweet deal going: don't pay US taxes on foreign income, and make a deal to avoid paying foreign taxes on that same income because they're a US company bringing all those jobs to the foreign country. And now Obama's looking to ruin their nice little sweetheart deal.

Where exactly do you think the businesses are going to come up with the extra money? Unlike the U.S. government, they can't just print more of it. No, they'll raise prices, lower dividends, lower wages, and offer fewer jobs. FEWER JOBS. Does this sound like a good idea?

You're still paying for all those government services "the businesses" are using up, just indirectly. You fell for it! Bravo.

If you keep insisting that corporations don't deserve all of their tax breaks and special treatment by the government, the really greedy ones may be put out of business. Then, the network of Fortune 1000 CEOs might make less money, and they might have to actually work, or not even receive hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses when their businesses are failing.

This may lead to the end of large, bureaucratic, inefficient mega corporations which exploit people and resources for short term profit, using monopoly tactics and sleazy practices like bribing politicians or using tax havens or ripping off their customers. You might end up with unions, four week vacations, the right to health care, and a lower poverty rate!

Actually, wrong. It would lead to more jobs. Why? Let me explain.Only large companies can afford large scale tax evasion. Because of that smaller local companies cannot compete with large companies (they cannot evade taxes) and go out of business. If large companies cannot evade taxes, smaller local companies suddenly become more competitive and that will actually create jobs.

Small and medium sized businesses are pretty much the backbone of the economy and provide most jobs by percentage, so rising their competitiveness is a very good idea.

You act like corporations have no profit margins at all. As if every dollar they spend goes directly to labor and expenses.

It's quite simple. Profits from a corporation become the property of the shareholders. Either as retained earnings or dividends. Now, dividends are taxed at a flat 15%. Compare that to what you pay in taxes. If you owned the company, and could receive your pay in dividends, your total tax bill would be 15%.

The other option is to leave the money in the business as retained earnings or to spend it on assets. Want a new 20M aircraft? Instead of taking the money yourself and paying taxes on it before buying the plane, let the company buy the plane and book it as an asset. They get to depreciate it (150% right now thanks to bonus depreciation on aircraft) and not pay any tax on the money used to purchase it. (Simplification, but you get the general idea)

Corporate income tax exists as some kind of a counterbalance to this sort of behavior. It's intended to discourage principals from leaving most of what is really their profits in the company to avoid paying income tax on them. Now if the company is retaining earnings for a legitimate business purpose (saving for assets, rainy day, etc..) then they'll get the taxes back when they actually spend that money. (If they spend a lot, they can even back claim a net operating loss and get back money from previous years)

At the end of the day, this is all about making them accountable for the money they should pay tax on.

It also has NOTHING to do with employees or their ability to hire more. Employees are an expense. Money spent on employees is deductible. If anything, hiring more people would be a good way to AVOID paying the additional tax.

Again, for those of you that are really dense, or have drunk a lot of red koolaid:

CORPORATE INCOME TAX IS A TAX ON RETAINED EARNINGS. RE IS CALCULATED AFTER EMPLOYEE COSTS ARE REMOVED.

Don't let the pundits convince you that it's going to reduce employment. What it will do is force the super-high income bracket that derives most of their income from dividends to pay their fair share.

My effective tax rate was 38% last year, since my company doesn't make enough to pay me mostly through dividends. Most of my customers effective tax rates were less then 20%. On twice or more income, they pay about 5% total tax more then I did.

The usual slashdot meme is RTFA. In this case, read a fscking accounting book, or the 1041 instructions before you start spouting off about corporate income tax and what it does.

For starters, maybe if corporations started paying their taxes, we could take down the debt some, or maybe we could lower taxes on the rest of us. I don't feel bad for the corporations, maybe they'll just have to forgo paying their executives their excessively huge salaries.

Also, every time Obama does something wrong, we see a bunch of people making sarcastic comments here on how Obama represents "change we can believe in". I do not agree with everything he has done, but I do like to see this sort of thing, he seems like he is honestly trying to run the government in a fiscally responsible way. That's a big difference from our previous president who refused to cut spending to pay for his tax cuts, and even refused to allow the cost of his several hundred billion dollar unnecessary war to be included in the normal budget. We're all paying for that kind of "limited government" now, as will be our children and grandchildren.

The race to lower taxes is a race straight to the bottom. Businesses will continue to use tax havens as long as there is any benefit to doing so, and the simple fact is that a big economy like the USA cannot afford to lower tax rates to what a little place like the Cayman Islands can charge, e.g. basically nothing.

A better solution is to change conflict laws to ignore the formal jurisdiction of incorporation and instead use the primary place of business. Want to be a Cayman corporation? Then move your ass to the Cayman Islands, along with your entire family. Otherwise, you will be taxed based on where your company really is headquartered. This is something that the major economies of the world can cooperate to make happen, and we don't have to drop our taxes into the toilet to do it.

Mod parent up. People who want to raise taxes on evil "big business" seem to not understand that the end result is that those evil "big businesses" will have to fire people or increase their prices to remain competitive successful.

Big businesses employ big numbers of people. This concept is lost on most Democrats and populists that scapegoat big corporations. You can't just blame big companies for everything and expect that they'll ignore this and carry on!

Here in Wisconsin we are looking at a number of laws that will substantially increase taxes on corporations doing business in the state. As a direct result of the anti-business climate in the state, a number of businesses have either relocated operations that were in Wisconsin or actively decided to decline to locate their headquarters in the state -- for example, our famous Miller Brewing Company, formerly headquartered in Milwaukee, merged with Coors of Denver and decided to relocate their headquarters to Chicago.

Most of those Bermuda/Cayman holding companies exist not to avoid taxes entirely, but rather to keep the US from double-taxing profits that have already been taxed once by Europe/Asia, which is what the US does when this offshore trick isn't used.

It seems likely to me that if US companies can't do that any longer, many will cease to be US companies. It's not that hard to move HQ to Ireland or Canada or wherever. Then the US can become a nation of grunt workers while the real power and intellect (and taxable personal income) is abroad.

Most of those Bermuda/Cayman holding companies exist not to avoid taxes entirely, but rather to keep the US from double-taxing profits that have already been taxed once by Europe/Asia, which is what the US does when this offshore trick isn't used.

This is bogus argument. US has tax treaties with most of the rest of the world that prevent double taxation

It seems likely to me that if US companies can't do that any longer, many will cease to be US companies. It's not that hard to move HQ to Ireland or Canada or wherever. Then the US can become a nation of grunt workers while the real power and intellect (and taxable personal income) is abroad.

And where will they go exactly to find regulations and tax system that is more friendly to corporation than US? Canada? Really!?

EU is cracking on tax heavens too and Ireland will not enjoy it's special status much longer.

With the "free" (read "internationally managed") trade agreements we have with foreign nations, I don't think "fixing" these "loopholes" will have the effect this administration desires. "Fixing" these "loopholes" and thus increasing the over all tax burden of a corporation may have quite the opposite effect.

If it becomes more lucrative and less of a tax burden to be a foreign business inside one of these countries with managed trade agreements instead of a domestic one, what will happen? The business will move because tariffs and import taxes become cheaper than domestic ones. That means unemployment grows and tax revenues drop.

This administration would be well served to tread lightly, and ensure that conducting business withing the U.S. is cheaper than foreign alternatives, else the U.S. may find itself with very little businesses conducting any business at all.

Forbes had a great piece on this a few months ago. People aren't going to Ireland / the Caymans because they don't want to pay taxes and just want to cheat... the cost of compliance is too high.

One of the good things Regan was supposed to have done was get lots of tax money back to the US by simplifying our tax code. Even though they may have brought their money back from countries with lower tax burdens, it was easier to have it in the US.

There is an opportunity cost to moving your money to another country or using a tax shelter (legal or not). People judge it worth it because of what they have to go through.

If you simply simplify the tax code so it's not so hard to deal with, people will come back. Things have only gotten worse recently with SarbOx. Closing loopholes is trying to tie the arms of suicidal people to beds. It works much better to try to get them to stop being suicidal.

There will always be people who try to cheat the system because they are immoral jerks. But if it doesn't take wealthy people a team of 30 tax attorneys to keep their wealth in line, they're more likely to keep it in the US and avoid the hassle of all the international laws (and spending 183 days of the year out of the country, and blah blah blah). No tax breaks for pork farmers on 17-35 acres in areas that don't observe daylight savings time unless they grow at least 3% barley ethanol using sustainable methods.

Companies that cheat a country out of taxes should be barred from selling their products in that country. My guess is that if North America and Europe signed a treaty to that effect (pay your taxes or else you can't operate here), we'd suddenly see a large increase in tax revenue. It's hard to make a profit after you lose 1.2 billion potential clients.